Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: the action is reversible/soft-remove, the HTTP method (DELETE), and the return status (204 no body). This goes beyond the annotation without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences front-load the purpose, then provide the REST endpoint and response details. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers the return (204 no body), the hash mechanism, and the reversibility. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the email-to-MD5 hash transformation and the relationship between email and subscriberHash, which the schema does not fully convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Archive (soft-remove) an audience member' and clearly distinguishes from the permanent-delete action, making its purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states this is NOT the permanent-delete action, providing a when-not guideline. It also implies when to use it (reversible removal), but does not name specific alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.